Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1425 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.21125/2015) U.P.S.R.T.C. Appellant(s) VERSUS Km. Mamta & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant-Corporation against the judgment/order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.1681 of 2014, which in turn, arises out of an Award dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge (in short the Tribunal), Hathras, Uttar Pradesh in MACT No.131 of 2010.3) In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts:4. The respondents-Claimant(Plaintiffs) filed a Claim Petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the M.V. Act) against the appellant-Corporation before the Tribunal, Hathras claiming compensation to the tune ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.14365 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C)No.29373/2012) BASAVANTAPPA ... APPELLANT(S) VS. IRAPPA(D) BY LRS. & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. The only issue is with regard to payment of the amount which had been paid by the appellant to the respondents at the time of entering into an agreement to purchase the property in question.3. In view of the fact that the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance had been dismissed on the ground that the respondents did not have title, the respondents must repay the amount received by them from the appellant. The amount shall be returned within two months from today with simple interest @9%.4. Intimation of this order be served upon the respondents.5. The appeal is allowed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ..............J.[ADARSH KUMAR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3549 OF2008PAMPATI SATHAMMA (D)TH. LRS.-. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PAMPAT GANGARAM - RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3548 OF2008JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE,J.1. Applications for substitution are allowed.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.3. We have considered the contents of the impugned Judgment as well as the inter-se relationship among the parties and in the interest of justice, we think it just and proper if the respondent gives 1/3rd of the properties in question to all the appellants i.e. the sister of the respondent and legal heirs of the deceased sister. 1/3rd of the properties or value thereof shall be given by the respondent to the appellants within six months from today.4. According to the respondent, at present value of the property is approximately Rs 60 lakhs. However, if the appellants do not agree to the said valuation, it would be open to them to raise the said contention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.884 OF2015TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH) RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th January, 2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.2554 of 1997 affirming the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No.342 of 1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I., the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence.2. This is a case where the prosecutrix, who is blind and an illiterate girl, was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix was residing with her father at Village Nandini Khundini. Her mother had left and married somewhere else and, thereafter, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5826 OF2011Mukund Dewangan Appellant Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. Respondents [With SLP [C]. Nos.32828, 32833 and 32835/2010, 8709-8710 and 8712- 8713/2014, 20072, 3300 and 3302/2015, 887-890/2013, 16082/2012, 28455- 28456/2013, CA No.6379/2013, SLP (C) Nos.13008, 15759-15760 and 14333- 14334/2014, 6429/2015, 36364-36365/2014, 15924/2015, CA No.9990/14, SLP (C) Nos. 8704-8706/2014, CA Nos. 4068-4069/2012, SLP (C) No.32827/2010 and CA No.8992/2012]. ORDER ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The question raised is whether for the drivers having licence to drive light motor vehicles there is a necessity of obtaining endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is of class of light motor vehicle.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. For consideration of aforesaid question, it is necessary to refer to various provisions and decisions.3. Driving licence has been define...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.110 OF2016(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No.3251 of 2012) |HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGE |Appellant(s) | Versus |STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS |Respondent(s) | ORDER SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.2. Leave granted.3. Though the matter has remained pending for long, fortunately the core issue involved for our consideration is a very simple one.4. The appellant was respondent in two Criminal Appeals bearing Numbers 766 and 767 of 2010 arising out of a common judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated September 8, 2009 in CRL.W.P. No.2482 of 2008.5. This Court disposed of both the appeals vide order dated April 12, 2010. It did not approve the action of High Court in entertaining writ petitions for change of investigating officer. The relevant parts of that order read as follows :- We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2216-2217 OF2010BHARAMAPPA GOGI APPELLANT VERSUS PRAVEEN MURTHY & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY, J.These appeals register a challenge to the judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1126 of 2006 and 1167 of 2006 preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.2216 of 2010 and respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.2217 of 2010 respectively.2. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by the interference with the conviction of the respondents-accused recorded by the trial court. Whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.2216 of 2010 were convicted under Sections 390/392/457 read with Section 34 IPC, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.2217 of 2010, however, had been additionally convicted under Section 302 IPC. All the three accused were sentenced accordingly. Though...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.274 OF2016|RICHA MISHRA |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the appointment for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Dy.S.P.'). Though, the appellant herein had participated in the selection process and she not only qualified at each stage of the examination process, her name was still not included in the list of successful candidates for the said post. The reason given was that as per the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2000), upper age limit for appointment to the post of Dy.S.P. was 25 years and she had already crossed the said age limit, and therefore, she was rendered ineligible for the post in question.2. This decision of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5038 OF2009Surjeet Singh Bhamra Appellant(s) VERSUS Bank of India & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.171 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2006 of the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.3842 of 2002 by which the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant wherein the challenge was to the order dated 20.03.2001 passed by the Chief Manager, Bank of India (respondent No.3 herein) imposing the punishment of reduction of his basic pay by five stages on the appellant.2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.3) The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.128 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8816 of 2011) Deepak Surana and Ors. . Appellants Versus State of Madhya Pradesh . Respondent ORDER Uday U. Lalit, J.Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.649 of 2008. The High Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Special Court discharging the present appellants of the charges leveled against them. Land admeasuring about 22.56 acres, situated at Mumbai-Agra Road in Indore belonging to one Smt. Sohan Kumari Sankhla and her son was subject matter of acquisition by the Indore Town Improvement Trust (subsequently, Indore Development Authority). The challenge in that behalf was pending in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.1181 of 1988, during which pendency, a proposal was initiated by the then Additional Secretary in t...
Tag this Judgment!